Comments: Vivienne Faull to be next Dean of York

Kudos, Congrats and God Bless!

Posted by JCF at Thursday, 5 July 2012 at 10:40pm BST

>> But Rev Faull is no stranger to this: when she was appointed as Dean of Leicester Cathedral one of her close colleagues there did not accept the priestly ministry of women.

Is it just me, or does anyone else ever wonder how on earth these people reconcile themselves with the Governor of the Church having been a woman for the past 60 years?

Posted by Randal Oulton at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 7:16am BST

No -- the role of the Supreme Governor of the Church is an entirely different thing. There is no sacramental authority or jurisdiction in that role. There is no canonical obedience to the Supreme Governor, and the Supreme Governor holds no teaching office in the Church, nor claims any apostolic succession.

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 7:58am BST

Surely the idea of Royal Supremacy suggests that the monarch does indeed have authority in ecclesiastical affairs? Does she not also possess ordinary jurisdiction, i.e. over Royal Peculiars?

This never seems to be mentioned in any of the debates...

Posted by Fr James at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 8:52am BST

Randal - "these people" - a tad patronising don't you fear? It is as Simon Kershaw points out quite easy to reconcile catholic and orthdox views on the three fold-ministry with support of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England for her gracious Majesty (Long may she reign) is not, neither claims to be bishop, priest nor deacon.
Similarly it is not difficult to regard the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven but in no way priestly or apostolic for Our Blessed Lord did not include even his virgin mother among the chosen Twelve but, as shewn in many great works of art, is depicted as crowning Her (as Archbishop Fisher did to the Queen on 2nd June 1953) as Queen of the heavenly realms (Long may she reign).

Posted by Father David at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 9:48am BST

"... a tad patronising." Glass houses, David?

Posted by Lapinbizarre/Roger Mortimer at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 7:11pm BST

Simon kershaw is wrong..the Church of England bishops derive their jurisdiction from the monarch and she is Ordinary to the two Archbishops. The Queen has no power over Holy orders, but has the power to appoint bishops and give them their authority.

Before the Reformation, jurisdiction was given by the Holy See...since the split it has been from the monarch.

Posted by Robert ian Williams at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 7:20pm BST

Indeed Bunny - "should not throw stnes"
Similarly - "Let he who is without sin - cast the first stone."

Posted by Father David at Friday, 6 July 2012 at 9:49pm BST

"for her gracious Majesty (Long may she reign) is not, neither claims to be bishop, priest nor deacon"

Not quite so tidy, though: as I recall the chapter in the old SPCK "Liturgy & Worship" on the Coronation Mass has quite an extensive summary of the quasi-ordinal character and origins of the service. It's not hard to see how Luther made the jump to the Prince as the font of ordaining authority in the absence of cooperative bishops.

What I can't get my head around is that most of "these people" presumably believe that Maundy Thursday was the institution of the Mass, when under the logic of 'Ordinatio sacerdotalis' Jesus was no more "valid" a celebrant than ++Katharine, having derived his human nature wholly from the Mother whom Fr David so rashly disclaims as "in no way priestly."

Posted by Geoff at Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 12:38am BST

Perhaps before we assume that women priests is a thoroughly modern innovation, maybe we should take a look at this anonymous 15th century French painting showing Our Lady in a clearly priestly role distributing the Host at the Mass.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/44AcGqxVDSuSxTJM8av7xg

Posted by Counterlight at Saturday, 7 July 2012 at 7:15pm BST

"the Coronation Mass has quite an extensive summary of the quasi-ordinal character and origins of the service". The Coronation did, of course, take place within the context of a celebration of Holy Communion but I'd be interested to learn if Geoff can point me to any occasion during the past 60 years when our 'quasi-ordained' monarch has presided at a celebration of the Holy Eucharist?
The Second Person of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity, God made flesh, is the source of all priestly authority and was and is, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews inform us, throughout all eternity the Great High Priest. He needed no ordination. An ordained priest of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is empowered at and by his ordination to re-present His perfect Sacrifice when he stands at the altar as the effectual symbol of Him who was both God and man. The priest in his sacramental role is not the symbol of humanity, nor is he the symbol of Christian men and women. He is the symbol of the one particular man (not woman) who lived in Palestine and offered Himself a perfect Sacrifice to His Father in the power of the Spirit. This is the 'scandal' of particularity which so offends the modern mind. The masculinity of the priest is therefore not incidental but essential if the symbolism is to be authentic and the sacrament valid.

Posted by Father David at Sunday, 8 July 2012 at 5:37am BST

"He is the symbol of the one particular man (not woman) who lived in Palestine...The masculinity of the priest is therefore not incidental but essential"

And is it essential that that token of masculinity be circumcised (on the eighth day, by a mohel) as that one particular man was? Must he speak Aramaic as his first language? Must he have a Jewish mother?

In short, Fr David, your type of argument is *absurd*. Jesus was God incarnate as a HUMAN being: the Image and Likeness of God [We can postulate that the male gender was necessary for God's *mission* in that time&place, but can say no more than that]. To translate that to an essential masculinity for Christ's priests in 2012---when we KNOW that women are not "defective men" (as was believed in the Middle Ages)---is as ridiculous as demanding proof of Jewish maternity for them.

And can we please stop talking in hypotheticals? Women, ordained as priests and bishops, aren't "what if": she's my own priest! They are seminary classmates of mine! They have real names, and faces, and ministries---and holy gifts, IN their holy orders. To suggest that women haven't already been ordained to Christ's priesthood and apostolic succession is as wrong as saying Anglican eucharistic species aren't really Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity---then again, Fr David, perhaps you agree w/ the Romans on THAT, too. :-(

Posted by JCF at Monday, 9 July 2012 at 6:25am BST

The differentiation between male and female in God's good creation is absolutely fundamental to our nature as human beings.
Surely it is JCF who is being "absurd" in equating that which is fundamental to trivialities like being circumcised. speaking Aramaic and having a Jewish mother. Really!

Posted by Father David at Monday, 9 July 2012 at 2:31pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.